Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Opinions
There are valid criticisms of evolution
BY DAVID BERLINSKI
"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."
Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."
Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:
• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It therefore seems unlikely that sugars could have played a role in the first informational macromolecules." Professor Stanley Miller"
AH! The Low Carb craze has been around longer than anybody thought~!
Oh, I so agree, bondserv! We live in such fascinating times....
Again, thank you so very much for the ping, and for writing!
I'm not sure they do. What they allege is that from a purely scientific standpoint, most theories in regardo to evolution are not science but conjecture.
And the conjecture that life is simply too complex to have happened by chance is at least as solid a scientific theory as a conjecture that it did. Indeed from a purely statistical analysis the odds are about 10100 to one against the conjecture that it happened sponataneously. Indeed, the odds are probably not even that good. And if it didn't happen by chance, then it had to happen by design. Those are the two possibilities. Unless you can come up with a viable third alternative.
I'm listening.
BTW what kind of Guitar do you play?
I always heard that Jupiter was our Solar Systems vacuum cleaner. It did its job, and it's probably been doing it for a long time. Thanks Jup.
As far as evidence for speciation, we rely upon fossil evidence and genetic evidence. We make anatomical comparisons and try to make hierarchical relationships based on that. Furthermore, in embryology, all vertebrates look almost exactly alike in the beginning stages of their growth. That means that there is some sort of relation - a similar minimal blueprint of sorts.
But as far as paleontology is concerned, it is a relatively new field of study. As far as transitional species go, every species is a transitional species. Unfortunately, out knowledge of the fossil record will always be incomplete. To complete the fossil record would require digging up the entire earth's crust and sifting through it. But to withold judgment of the fossil record based on its incompleteness is not going to work. At what point can we say we have enough information to make a judgment?
Fortunately for evolutionists, genetic analysis backs up the theory. Chimpanzees are our closest species relative, sharing 98% of our DNA. Can you seriously deny that chimpanzees are closer to us than other species, such as alligators? If you don't deny it, then that would mean speciation somehow took place. We didn't observe it, but we know it took place. We cannot observe the continents moving (actually, I suppose we can now thanks to our more highly advanced technology), but we know they have done so.
I assume you believe speciation took place. But how can you measure design? You can't. What are the criteria? I maintain measuring design is a subjective experience. To even want to look for evidence is a bad idea, akin to trying to read God's mind. The materialistic aspect of science is hard and complicated enough, I'll leave the metaphysics to others.
Trying to decide which of these compares to a philosophy that assumes the earth is billions of years old while demanding such an assumption merits the name of "science."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Science is an exercise and a human endeavor and one can define a particular belief as supported by science and be dishonest. The debate really isn't that ID does this but that proponents of ID claim that the academics defending the modern synthesis of evolution do this.
This article sums it up nicely.
The quite beneficial goal of the ID movement is to push science back into the limited magisterium to which it belongs and make it is acceptible again to credit God with taking an active role in His creation.
Of course. Name calling is the last refuge of besieged evolutionists who can no longer stand up to the powerful arguments dismantling their flimsy and foolish theory.
It's to be expected.
"To think I owe a steady earth to none other than he who offsets my baldheadedness. Thank you. Just remember it's okay to go hatless outdoors in the dark."
I will remember that, as a "Follicle-Challenged Person" myself.
Wheat, cotton, chimeras, antibiotics, etc.etc etc. There is evidence of desing in biology.
How do you know it was designed?
A much more difficult question.
I think they do want to have ID considered scientific or else they wouldn't be trying to have it introduced into biology classrooms.
I play a lot of different types of music; mostly country, blues, old time mountain music. I grew up wanting to play like Eddie Van Halen though so I don't want to be pigeon-holed into any one thing.
Btw, it's nice to talk about something non-controversial :)
(I don't think anybody actually changes any opinions in threads like these yet I can't keep away lol)
"I don't see how anyone can find evidence for design.
Wheat, cotton, chimeras, antibiotics, etc.etc etc. There is evidence of desing in biology."
Don't forget Brittany Spears.
So science can become the handmaiden of theology again? I think the Middle Ages are already over.
You lost me at "randomness pillar". I don't know about all that stuff, mathematical odds and all that. The only thing I know is that we have a bunch of bones, some organims, look alike, some look different, some look similar to others, and that there is genetic analysis helps clarify things. And we have to explain this somehow. That's a physical reality I can (literally) grasp and hold onto. That reality trumps any mathematical construct, which is more likely to be flawed than evolutionary theory, as far as I'm concerned.
The Cambrian explosion gave us all 34 or 35 phlya present in the animal kingdom today. What mechanism limits body plans to 35 when evolution has no direction. Why are the boundaries so constrained?
Sometimes less is better, especially where comedy? is concerned.
I would not deny that chimps are closer to us than other species. In fact, they are amazingly close. Other than the fact they may be ready at any time to rip my face and genitals off they are my brothers and sisters.
But to assume, just because of apparent nearness, we are some how descended from one another is a logical non-sequitur. We don't do that even with inanimate objects. Two automobiles - absolutlely a product of intelligent design - have been developed completely apart from corresponding relationships in substance and time. There is no compelling reason to take it as a given that nature would initiate/produce common descent in every case simply because there is an apparent likeness.
I try to put in an hour or two a night on my guitar. (I just broke down and bought a Gibson Les Paul last summer. :-) I play mostly rock and blues, but I'm too old to break in to those genre's. I'm thinking maybe there's still hope in the Country Music Genre. But these days it seems you got to look good to get a contract. Maybe I could play back-up.
Go to my forum page and if you scroll to the bottom (past all that fundamentalist religious stuff) you will find a few links to guitar tabs and lessons on line. Trufire.com is part of Guitar Player Magazine and they have some really cool online lessons you can download.
"Sometimes less is better, especially where comedy? is concerned."
Hmmm...interesting theory. I dispute it though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.